Buy Viagra Without Prescription - Trusted Online Pharmacy

The 4th Annual Homeland Defense and Security Education Summit Viagra cheap, took place on February 24-25, 2010 at Georgetown University.

The conference theme was “Homeland Security in Transition.”

The academic discipline of homeland security and defense continues to grow and mature, viagra online kopen. Where to buy cheap viagra, In light of the advances we are experiencing, and with the first post-9/11 administration one year in office, αγοράσετε viagra έκπτωση, Bestill viagra online, our focus is on validating homeland security and defense education.

Here are some highlight of the conference, Indiana IN Ind. , Hawaii HI , prepared by Dr. Stan Supinski:

-----------

DHS Undersecretary for Management Elaine Duke discussed where the money in DHS is going and the needs of the workforce (more border work, billige viagra Apotheke, Buy cheap viagra, especially in the north; the United States Coast Guard; and cyber were highlighted).  She also mentioned the emphases in the newly released Quadrennial Homeland Security Review – security, resiliency, cheapest viagra prices, Buy viagra no rx, and maintaining our ability to conduct cross border commerce.

Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke about Homeland Security as a distinctive discipline because of the inclusion of national security and law enforcement, viagra cheap.

He provided a list of the 8 most important things to include in an academic homeland security program, acheter viagra bon marché. Ordering viagra online legally,

• Management skills, and in particular the acquisition process


• Intelligence


• Risk management concepts and application


• Emergency management – with a huge emphasis on planning


• Legal issues – a basic understanding of applicable laws and constitutional authorities


• International relations


• Cyber and technological issues


• Social psychology – a focus on interagency relationship building and how to get the variety of players involved to cooperate.

Randy Larsen of the Institute for Homeland Security led a useful plenary session that focused primarily on the WMD threat.  He highlighted the need to balance our efforts towards high probability/low consequence events versus low probability/high consequence events, Vermont VT Vt. , Osta viagra, and noted we must keep our federal emphasis on the latter.

A plenary panel (with both DHS and NORTHCOM representatives) on critical infrastructure and the private sector discussed the need to emphasize both topics in our courses.  Barbara Yagerman of DHS said her office would support an effort to develop curriculum that could be shared across the community, Alaska AK . Texas TX Tex. , Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs Paul Stockton spoke in a plenary session about the needs of the DoD workforce and the current state of civilian-military relations. Viagra cheap, Secretary Stockton, and several of the other speakers, emphasized the need for academic homeland security programs to develop research, writing and planning skills.  Stockton also indicated that his office would support development of curricular components for planning courses

Nadav Morag conducted a well received presentation on Homeland Security in Israel.  Dr. Morag has developed an on-line self study course on the subject and it is available to conference attendees on the Center for Homeland Defense and Security website, Pennsylvania PA Penn. . Cheap viagra, The Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium Association executive director provided an update on the organization, including inroads made with the Department of Education and the posting of required accreditation documentation to their website.  This generated lots of positive discussion, purchase viagra, Order viagra no rx, particularly regarding the fact that core competencies will be emphasized, not prescriptions toward specific courses, order viagra from canada. New Hampshire NH N.H. , The conference also included 32 Breakout sessions.

The conference reminded participants they are part of a growing and important community, cheap viagra no rx. Missouri MO Mo. , Virtually every homeland security education program continues to grow.   For example, the University of Maryland program now has 550 majors; Tulane, buy viagra online legally, which just recently had their masters approved, already has 227.

The Homeland Defense and Security Education Summit was sponsored by:

• Homeland Security / Defense Education Consortium Association (HSDECA)


• Georgetown University Center for Peace and Security Studies (CPASS)


• Office of the Chief Learning Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)


• Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS)

.

Similar posts: Sildenafil citrate fast shipping. Buy viagra without prescription. Buy cialis cod. Where to buy viagra. Order viagra online cheap. Cheap viagra online cheap.
Trackbacks from: Viagra cheap. Viagra cheap. Viagra cheap. Viagra cheap. Viagra cheap. Viagra cheap.

Tuesday night a new National Intelligence Strategy was given its public premiere.  Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, gave a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.  Attendant to the speech an eighteen-page strategy document was made available. It's worth reading.  In straightforward language it sets out a vision,  philosophy and approach to intelligence that Blair and his leadership team perceive will give the US a comparative advantage.  The homeland security aspect of the the NIS is mostly reflected in four elements.  First, there is significant attention given to combating violent extremism.  Second, the strategy continues a trend away from focusing only on specific threats and increases attention to broader threat-capabilities.  While Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia each get a shout-out, there is significant priority given to intelligence requirements related to climate change and energy competition, technological change, and pandemic disease.  It is, essentially, an all-risks strategy. Third, the NIS gives priority to "Understand, detect, and counter adversary cyber threats to enable protection of the Nation's infrastructure." This emphasis has gotten quite a bit of media attention. (See: Politico, AFP, and NextGov.) Fourth, the strategy highlights the need to, "Strengthen existing and establish new partnerships with domestic, public and private entities to improve access to sources of information and intelligence, and ensure appropriate dissemination of intelligence Community products and services." (I added the bold highlights.) In an interesting coincidence (?) the day before the DNI's speech, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security announced a new intelligence initiative  focused on state and local partners:

Under this initiative, select fusion center personnel with a federal security clearance will be able to access specific terrorism-related information resident on the DoD Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet)—a secure network used to send classified data. This classified data will be accessed via DHS' Homeland Security Data Network (HSDN). DHS will be responsible for ensuring that proper security procedures are followed.

"With this action, DoD continues its work in supporting states and localities who are leading our efforts to secure the nation from domestic terrorism attacks," said Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs Paul N. Stockton. "We look forward to exploring other opportunities where DoD can help our state and local partners effectively defeat terrorism."

I happened to be in the Bay area and was joined by some friends who had just left Admiral Blair's Tuesday evening speech.  It helps that he is a good speaker.  There are some real laughs in the speech, not a trivial achievement given the context. Partly because of the laughs, the DNI did not come off as Dennis-the-Menace.  He projected class, competence and  character. More important, of course, is the content of his remarks and, especially, his strategy.  This is the second National Intelligence Strategy to be made public.  This tradition should be continued and extended.  I have some concern with FOIA free-for-alls.  Confidentiality and discretion can be helpful in finding common ground... of which I wish we could find a bit more. But I don't see how a major strategy can be secret in a democracy. Several core strategies of the Bush administration -- including HSPD-15 on counterterrorism and HSPD-23 on cybersecurity -- are classified and no public version has been released.  What does it mean for a democracy to have a secret strategy? The operational who, when, where, and how of strategy may not be appropriate to share.  But for government by consent of the governed to have any chance of working there is a fundamental need for the whats and whys of strategy to be brought before the people and their representatives.  The biggest threat Dennis Blair faced Tuesday night was the mistrust of his fellow citizens. There were plenty in the room concerned that their government had been spying on them, behaving outside the law, and subverting the constitution.  Americans may not know much history, but we know enough to understand that among great powers, liberties have usually been lost to internal "guardians" long before the external enemy shows-up.  It is a bit sad -- but nonetheless appropriate -- that Blair's official Vision for the Intelligence Community concludes, "Moreover, the Intelligence Community must exemplify America’s values: operating under the rule of law, consistent with Americans’ expectations for protection of privacy and civil liberties, respectful of human rights, and in a manner that retains the trust of the American people." Once we might have taken this for granted. No more.

There is another letter circulating related to Assistant Secretary Stockton's proposal to put in place a legal basis for federal activation of reserves for disaster response.  See related prior posts here and here. Below the NGA gives further attention to activating the Council of Governors established by the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. See related coverage by Roxana Tiron in The Hill and Megan Scully at govexec.com. LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION August 20, 2009

The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable John McCain Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain: The nation's governors oppose efforts to provide the Secretary of Defense with expanded authorities to assist in the response to domestic disasters as part of this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Governors remain concerned regarding proposed changes to the military’s authority to engage independently in domestic emergency response situations. We strongly believe the consideration of any such proposals should be preceded by a discussion regarding the tactical control of forces serving inside a state during a disaster response. It is our understanding that the Department of Defense (DoD) has asked Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to order Reserve forces to active duty to assist in disaster response as part of the NDAA conference agreement for Fiscal Year 2010. As you know, a similar provision was included in last year's House version of the NDAA, but was removed in conference because of governors’ concerns. In the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the bill, Congress made clear that DoD should engage governors to address their concerns before moving the proposal forward: "The Department of Defense should engage with the community of governors to work out an understanding of unity of effort during domestic terrorist events and public emergencies. This key underlying issue must be addressed to allow this and other promising proposals to be enacted." Recent outreach by officials at DoD to correspond with governors regarding their proposal is not sufficient to engender governors' support or justify moving ahead with the proposal at this time. As set forth in the attached letter we sent recently to Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, governors welcome the opportunity to work with DoD to discuss unity of effort and tactical control during disasters and to identify legislative and operational opportunities to improve our response to such events. These discussions, however, should not be done hastily and should be designed to address concerns and forge understanding between governors and the department. Fortunately Congress created the appropriate forum for discussing this issue when it called for the creation of the Council of Governors as part of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008. We've encouraged DoD and the Administration to establish the Council of Governors to facilitate consultation and coordination between the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and governors on issues critical to homeland defense and emergency response. Your support in ensuring the Council of Governors is quickly established would help facilitate the dialog that must take place before any legislation regarding these issues moves forward. Sincerely,

Governor James H. Douglas Chair

Governor Joe Manchin III Vice Chair

cc: The Honorable Ike Skelton, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee The Honorable Buck McKeon, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee

Last week's late Thursday post on the National Governors' Association response to a DOD proposal generated more readers than any post since I joined HLSWatch.    But it was a post about the NGA response to a proposal not seen, at least not seen here. The NGA response was -- predictably -- less-than-enthusiastic.  Here's the proposed legislative language being offered by DoD:

SEC. ___.  AUTHORITY TO ORDER ARMY RESERVE, NAVY RESERVE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE RESERVE TO ACTIVE DUTY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TO A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY. (a) AUTHORITY.- (1) IN GENERAL.-Chapter 1209 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 12304 the following new section: "§ 12304a. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency "(a) AUTHORITY.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide assistance in responding to a major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), the Secretary of Defense may, without the consent of the member affected, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve, under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for a continuous period of not more than 120 days. "(b) EXCLUSION FROM STRENGTH LIMITATIONS.-Members ordered to active duty under this section shall not be counted in computing authorized strength of members on active duty or members in grade under this title or any other law. "(c) TERMINATION OF DUTY.-Whenever any unit or member of the Reserves is ordered to active duty under this section, the service of all units or members so ordered to active duty may be terminated by order of the Secretary of Defense or law." (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 12304 the following new item: "12304a. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency.". (b) TREATMENT OF OPERATIONS AS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.-Section 101(a)(13)(B) of such title is amended by inserting "12304a," after "12304,". Further, at the close of this post  is the late July letter of Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs) to the NGA chairman regarding the proposed legislative language.  Through a staff colleague, Dr. Stockton has also passed along this further response:

Philip J. Palin's August 13, 2009 article "Govs to DoD: Thanks, but no thanks" was a great overview of the debate on the Department of Defense legislative proposal that seeks the authority to order Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves to active duty to assist in responses  to major disasters and emergencies in the United States.  I would like to emphasize that our proposal does not seek to usurp the authorities of Governors but rather ensure the federal government is able to respond with ALL available and appropriate resources when requested by a state.   As AP reporter Lolita Baldor aptly wrote, "California officials grew irate when they saw helicopters sitting idle at Camp Pendleton as fires raged through the countryside."  While the Pentagon was able to direct active duty Marine helicopter units to respond to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request for aid, (DoD) could not order the nearby Marine Corps Reserve units to do the same.  If passed, our legislative proposal will ensure that our Nation is able to access and utilize all of our capabilities during a disaster to include those in the military reserves, when requested by a Governor.

Tracking the surge of new readers on Friday and Saturday it is pretty clear that many readers of last week's post are concerned about an incremental acquisition of power by the central government producing a slippery slope to tyranny.   As Dr. Stockton's comments suggest, this concern is in tension with taking prudent steps to ensure a constitutional and effective federal response to a catastrophic disaster. 

Is there a reasonable accommodation of the tension?  Probably worth a real discussion that includes some careful listening by all sides. Following are two JPEG images of Paul Stockton's original letter.  I understand these are barely readable.  I will eventually pound out a text version of the letter, but given other commitments today, this is the best I can do and get this to you in a timely way.

 

On August 7 the National Governors Association replied to a letter evidently received from Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton.  The content of this letter is extracted below. I have not yet seen a copy of the original letter from Dr. Stockton. According to Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive, the letter signals an intention to seek Congressional approval to post almost 400,000 military personnel in the U.S.  Rothschild continues, "This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."  AP reporter Lolita Baldor offers a more expansive explanation for the governors' concern.  "At the heart of the disagreement is who will exercise the muscle to command reserve troops when they are sent to a particular state to deal with a hurricane, wildfire or other disaster. The governors see the Pentagon move as a strike at state sovereignty, while the military justifies it as a natural extension of its use of federal forces." Writing in The Hill, Reid Wilson, reports, "A bipartisan pair of governors is opposing a new Defense Department proposal to handle natural and terrorism-related disasters, contending that a murky chain of command could lead to more problems than solutions." A regular reader of HLSwatch suggests there is very helpful background in a  November 2008 CRS report, written by Jennifer Elsea and Chuck Mason, entitled: Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues.  The first paragraph is a great one, "Recognizing the risk that a standing army could pose to individual civil liberties and the sovereignty retained by the several states, but also cognizant of the need to provide for the defense of the nation against foreign and domestic threats, the framers of the Constitution incorporated a system of checks and balances to divide the control of the military between the President and Congress and to share the control of the militia with the states. This report summarizes the constitutional and statutory authorities and limitations relevant to the employment of the armed forces to provide disaster relief and law enforcement assistance." At this point, I don't have anything to add that you can't find in what these reporters and researchers have produced. Please access the original stories.  If anyone has a copy of Paul's letter, please let me know. TEXT OF NGA RESPONSE TO DOD LETTER The Honorable Paul Stockton Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 Dear Assistant Secretary Stockton: On behalf of the nation's governors, we would like to thank you for your letter regarding the legislative proposal to provide the Secretary of Defense with expanded authorities to assist in the response to domestic disasters. While we appreciate the outreach, governors remain cautious about changes to the military's authority to engage independently in domestic emergency response situations. The proposal you suggest may have merit, but its consideration must be preceded by a discussion regarding the tactical control of forces serving inside a state in response to a disaster or emergency. It is our position that to carry out our homeland defense and homeland security responsibilities, governors must retain command and control over the domestic use of their own National Guard forces (Title 32 or State Active Duty status), supporting National Guard forces from other states, and Title 10 forces operating within the supported governor's state or territory. Consequently, when a dual status command has not been established under 32 United States Code 325, governors, acting through their Adjutants General and Joint Force Headquarters-State, must have tactical control over all Title 10 active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor's state or territory. We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens. One of the key lessons learned from the response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 was the need for clear chains of command to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure the most effective use of response resources. Without assigning a governor tactical control of Title 10 forces assisting in a response, and without the use of a dual-hatted National Guard commander to ensure coordination between Title 32 and Title 10 forces, strong potential exists for confusion in mission execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander. We look forward to discussing potential tactical control solutions. For example, current military doctrine explicitly allows members of the United States armed forces to serve under the operational direction of foreign commanders, with the President retaining ultimate command over U.S. forces. If the command relationship with the President can be maintained while American active duty personnel are operating under the control of foreign commanders, we see no convincing reason why it cannot be maintained while active duty personnel are under the control of a state governor acting through the Adjutant General. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves' Second Report to Congress dated March 1, 2007, specifically recommends governor direction of state and federal military assets to synchronize the military response to disasters: "Recommendation 8. As part of Department of Defense efforts to develop plans for consequence management and support to civil authorities that account for state-level activities and incorporate the use of National Guard and Reserve forces as first military responders (see Recommendation 19), the Department of Defense should develop protocols that allow governors to direct the efforts of federal military assets responding to an emergency such as a natural disaster." We do not yet understand how the legislative proposal would increase the number of DoD personnel available to assist disaster victims. Under existing legislation, DoD has the authority to order members of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve to active duty to assist in responses to major disasters and emergencies in the United States. Further, we are not yet convinced the proposed legislative changes would increase the responsiveness of DoD personnel. Under existing legislation, when emergency conditions dictate, local military commanders and responsible DoD component officials are authorized to respond to requests from local authorities and to initiate immediate response actions to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions. As you know, a similar proposal was contained in the House of Representatives' version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, but was removed during conference because of governors' concerns. In the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the bill, Congress made clear that DoD should engage governors to address their concerns before moving the proposal forward: "The Department of Defense should engage with the community of governors to work out an understanding of unity of effort during domestic terrorist events and public emergencies. This key underlying issue must be addressed to allow this and other promising proposals to be enacted." Governors and their Adjutants General would welcome the opportunity to work with you and others at DoD and the National Guard Bureau to discuss tactical control during disasters and to identify legislative and operational opportunities to improve our response to such events. The best way to facilitate such consultation and communication is for DoD to quickly establish the Council of Governors as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Doing so will provide an appropriate forum to address these issues and other aspects of defense support to civilian authorities. Sincerely, Governor James H. Douglas Governor Joe Manchin III cc: The Honorable Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense The Honorable William J. Lynn, III, Deputy Secretary of Defense Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff The Honorable Michèle Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy General Victor E. Renuart, Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command General Craig R. McKinley, Chief, National Guard Bureau [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lingering mostly unnoticed within  Title XVIII, Subtitle B, Section 1882 of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act is a single paragraph:

The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

The instruction comes early in a seeming hodgepodge of measures to achieve "additional reserve component enhancement."  As far as I can find, President Bush did not establish the Council and President Obama has not yet undertaken to do so. On Tuesday in prepared testimony for the House Armed Services Committee,  Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities,  Paul Stockton offered the following:

State and local expertise and perspectives are essential to success. It is also important to be mindful of the fact that, in our nation’s Federalist system, the Governors are sovereign, independently elected chief executives of their States. As the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, I hope to contribute to a more inclusive effort, one that involves State and local partners as partners aforethought and not as an afterthought. (Note: emphasis in original testimony.) Congress, in section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), has provided a valuable vehicle through which to accomplish this goal: the “Council of Governors,” which would provide a forum for Governors, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to exchange advice, views, and recommendations on the National Guard, DSCA, and other matters of mutual interest. I will make it a top priority to implement this congressional objective.

The legislation is silent on how the Council of Governors might be established.  It could have fifty -- or even more -- members (the legislation does not reference "states,"  evidently terroritories might also be included).  The Governors themselves might participate.  But it could also consist of powerless appointees gathered as yet another feeble federal advisory body. In his testimony Mr. Stockton gives primary attention to the practical benefits of involving Governors and acknowledging local capability in preventing, responding to, and recovering from catastrophic events.  The practicalities of risk-readiness innately push for State and local leadership.  As Secretary Napolitano said on Wednesday, "So how do we secure our homeland and stay true to our values?...It starts with the American people. From there, it extends to local law enforcement, and from there up to the federal government..." Acknowledging and affirming the authority of the States in disaster preparedness and counter-terrorism is also consistent with Constitutional  protections of  State  sovereignty that - along with separation of powers, bicameralism, and the Bill of Rights -- is another firewall to tyranny.  In Federalist Paper No. 9 James Madison wrote, "The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power." Today most Americans -- unlike our Founders -- do not give much thought to the threat of tyranny.  Our benign neglect is a privilege produced by an intricate, sometimes unwieldy, yet resilient constitutional architecture.  It is worth considerable concern when any aspect of the structure is weakened. For the last half-century the authority of the States in many domains -- and especially in regard to security --- has been more honored in the breach than in the observance.  If you wonder about the Founders' intent, take some time to read -- and perhaps to tremble at -- Madison's comparison of the federal and state governments in Federalist Paper No. 46.  Since the close of the Civil War such language has been largely limited to the political fringe. A Council of Governors -- especially one embraced with enthusiasm and discipline by the Governors -- could restore balance where the central government has grown far beyond its intended proportion. 

Q. Why would you have your government so mixed?

A. Because the experience of the ages has proved that mixed governments are best.

Q. Simplicity is amiable and convenient in most things, why not in government?

A. Human nature is such, that it renders simple government destructive, and makes it necessary to place one power over against another to balance its weight.

Pennsylvania Evening Post

March 16, 1776

(Editorial Note:  The above is related to the July 29 posting entitled CCMRF: Constitutional Consequence Management Response Force)

The Associated Press is reporting, "Brigadier General Michael McDaniel will begin work Aug. 3 as deputy assistant secretary of homeland defense... The 52-year-old East Lansing resident has been in the Michigan National Guard since 1985." When I heard the rumor last week I sent Mike a congratulatory note.  When he did not respond, I took that as tacit confirmation.  But now it is public. Mike has served as the Michigan Governor's Homeland Security Advisor since 2003.  A general, a lawyer, and someone who has given significant attention to critical infrastructure, Mike is -- at least -- a triple threat.   His long service at the state level combined with his military background will be of particular value in this new role. Being familiar with  both Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs), and Mike McDaniel, this strikes me as a great team.  Mike has experiences, skills, and perspectives to complement Paul's.  And they have known each other sufficiently well that, I expect, they are each entirely aware of what they have in the other. The State and local emphasis that each man brings to this DOD office could be especially interesting to watch in action.  This also seems a sort of "tacit confirmation" for a rumor I have been hearing regarding what the White House office of personnel is looking for in HS appointments.  Please see Mike McDaniel's Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs  official biography.

Monday the Senate by voice vote confirmed Paul N. Stockton as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs.

Presidential nominees receive a set of questions from "their" Senate Committee in advance of testimony.  In all but a few nominations -- for example, supreme court justices -- both questions and answers are rather pro forma.  Pro forma does not mean unimportant.  The questions serve as markers for the Committee -- or individual members -- to signal their priorities.  For oversight committees the written Q&A is the beginning of a give and take that will continue while the nominee holds the position. Many of the questions recently asked of Paul Stockton,  the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, related to roles within DoD, between DoD and the Department of Homeland Security, relationships with the National Guard, with the States, and so on. This collection of questions and answers highlights the complicated matrix of players, authorities, and responsibilities that make up homeland security. Today, for example, Secretary Napolitano is in Colorado Springs meeting with General Gene Renuart the head of USNORTHCOM. The Committee questions I found most interesting are collected below.  In the original document these questions are scattered, but taken together may suggest a pattern of concern by the Committee.  In this case the questions -- and their ongoing implications -- may be more important than any current answer. The Secretary of Defense has issued guidance to establish 3 CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces (CCMRFs) by October 1, 2010. Please provide your understanding of the roles and capabilities of the CCMRFs. Do you have any concerns about the ability of the Department to implement the Secretary’s direction to create the three CCMRFs on the prescribed schedule? If confirmed, what would be your role with regard to the oversight, training, and employment of the CCMRFs? Concerns have been raised about CCMRFs having a possible peacetime role that is inconsistent with other laws (such as Posse Comitatus). Do you agree that the purpose of CCMRFs is as a DOD support element for CBRNE incidents, and not for peacetime or civil disturbance missions? There is currently considerable debate about the role the National Guard should play in defending the Homeland and in providing civil support assistance in Homeland security missions. The Commission on the National Guard and the Reserves recommended that the National Guard and Reserves be given “the lead role in and form the backbone of DOD operations in the homeland. Furthermore, DOD should assign the National Guard and Reserves homeland defense and civil support as a core competency consistent with their warfighting tasks and capabilities.” What role do you believe that the National Guard and Reserve should have in Homeland defense, as compared to the Active Component? The Department of Defense has a mission to provide support to other federal agencies in the event of a domestic incident that requires a federal response, if directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits military personnel in a federal status from engaging directly in domestic law enforcement “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” Use of National Guard personnel in a state status is not prohibited by this act, but the use of military personnel, including the National Guard in a Federal status, is prohibited. What is your understanding of the legal issues and authority associated with using National Guard and Reserve personnel in security roles within the United States? In your opinion, does the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) or chapter 18 of title 10, U.S.C. (which regulates the use of the armed forces in support of civilian law enforcement and related activities) require amendment to deal with the present homeland security situation? Under what circumstances do you believe that it is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide assistance to law enforcement authorities in response to a domestic terrorist event? What about a non-terrorist event? None of these are new issues.   Most of the issues are far from having a consensus answer.  Many of these questions are a kind of Pandora's box of policy problems for ongoing attention.  Raising the question is helpful to keeping the issue on top of the list for both the Committee and the nominee.  Trying to provide an entirely complete answer, especially in public session, would open the box and release an army of curses on  the Committee and -- especially -- the nominee.  This is usually understood by all involved. On Tuesday, though, Senator McCain found Mr. Stockton's answers to some of the Latin America related questions "lacking."  Here, perhaps, is an example: Question:

In the past few years, Bolivia has experienced extreme political unrest and, lately, President Morales has taken some positions that could complicate U.S. relations with Bolivia. How do you assess the situation in Bolivia and, if confirmed, how would you seek to accomplish the goals of combating drug trafficking and enhancing military engagement goals?

Answer:

The situation in Bolivia is of concern. I have not had the opportunity to review the existing DoD plans, approaches, and actions for Bolivia. If confirmed, one of my priorities will be to review such plans, approaches, and actions and make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

I understand a new set of answers to the questions of interest to Senator McCain will be provided. The lid on Pandora's box will, however, be kept closed and the nominee will be confirmed to the position for which he is highly qualified.  Along the way the ranking member and his staff has made a point regarding their role in oversight, the minority's continuing place in the process, and the ranking member's own place. The complete original set of advance policy questions and answers can be found at the Senate Armed Services Committee website (pdf).

"We (DHS) will become, in effect, the non-DoD locus for cyber security," Napolitano said. "It makes sense to have a DoD focus and a non-DoD focus, and I think that's functionally where it's going." (More from the Washington Post) The Post is also reporting that the Cybersecurity Review is still being reviewed and may not be released until next week. Today's Washington Times headlines, China blocks US from cyber warfare.  While Global Security Newswire quotes the head of the US Strategic Command as saying a cyber attack could justify nuclear retaliation. "I think you don't take any response options off the table from an attack on the United States of America," he told reporters during a Defense Writers Group breakfast... "Why would we constrain ourselves on how we respond?" Secretary Napolitano's prepared budget testimony to the the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is available from the DHS website. UPDATE: Prepared testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee is now available. Senator Vitter has released his hold on the nomination of Craig Fugate, reports the Associated Press.  UPDATE: Fugate was confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday night. Reuters is reporting from the afternoon CDC brief a total of 3009 cases of H1N1 across forty-five states.  This afternoon Talk of the Nation featured Dr. Anne Shuchat (CDC) and Dr. Howard Market (U of Michigan) in what NPR tried to make into an after-game show, but the guests insisted the game was still in the first quarter.  You can listen to the 30 minute call-in program at the NPR website.  A respected scientist has speculated about the possibility of H1N1 emerging from a "laboratory escape," Bloomberg is reporting. A high wind watch has been posted for the Santa Barbara area beginning at 6:00 pm local time. Severe storms are forecast for the Midwest and South for Wednesday and Wednesday night. A Miami jury has convicted five of six accused of plotting terrorist attacks on the Sears Tower and other locations. Please check out a fine piece of reporting - and use of the web to enhance original reporting - by Robert Mackey in the New York Times, "A Grand Conspiracy Theory from Pakistan." The May issue of Homeland Security Affairs is available online. In this morning's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Paul Stockton as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, ranking member Senator McCain raised a concern.  While praising Dr. Stockton's background in homeland security and homeland defense, the Senator noted that the nominee's background in the "equally important" area of Latin American defense policy "appears to be lacking."  There is a rumor that the ranking member announced his opposition to the Stockton nomination. That is not what was said.  This blog will provide more on this hearing  and related Homeland Defense issues on Thursday morning. I am in California client meetings all this week.  Given the nature of the meetings and the time differences, posts will be early or late, but seldom in-between.

Today, Tuesday, May 12 at 10:00 (eastern) the Senate Armed Services Committee will meet to consider the nomination of Paul Stockton to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs. An archived copy of the hearing's webcast is available at: http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2009/May/05-12-09Webcast.htm Several readers have previously critiqued the lack of substantive questioning of those being nominated.  The questions asked of these four nominees by the Armed Services Committee struck me as usually matching the serious issues the positions would engage.

Paul Noble Stockton has been nominated by the President to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs).  Below I have copied the brief bio included in the White House announcement. Readers of this blog will recall that Paul and I were announced as the co-contributors to succeed Jonah Czerwinski.  Shortly after that partnership was made public, Paul learned that he might be considered for a position in the administration.  For obvious reasons, Paul was never able to make a post, but has remained an avid reader of HLSwatch and, especially, the comments. I have known Paul for many years.  He has had fabulous mentors.  His father was in the thick of Illinois politics, which as we have seen can be an effective  schoolhouse.  Paul's political wisdom was well-nurtured by Senator Moynihan.  But I perceive Paul's most important guide has been James Madison.  When you meet him, ask something about the Federalist Papers.  Dr. Stockton will bring to Homeland Defense a profound sense of the role of the States in the defense of the nation... and of liberty. From the White House announcement: Mr. Stockton is a senior research scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. He was formerly the associate provost at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and was the founding director of its Center for Homeland Defense and Security. His research focuses on how U.S. security institutions respond to changes in the threat (including the rise of terrorism), and the interaction of Congress and the Executive branch in restructuring national security budgets, policies and institutional arrangements. From 2000-2001, he founded and served as the acting dean of NPS' School of International Graduate Studies. From 1995 until 2000, he served as director of NPS' Center for Civil-Military Relations. From 1986-1989 Stockton served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Stockton received a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College in 1976 and a doctorate in government from Harvard University in 1986.

Tomorrow at 10:00 am (eastern) the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing on Presidential Study Directive 1 and a possibe merger of the HSC with the NSC.  Recently some close to the White House have suggested that "merger" is an unfortunate way to frame the issue.  While I would agree, that is the way the issue continues to be framed. Some key readings: President Study Directive 1 A pro-merger argument by Christine Wormuth, A no-merger argument by Paul Stockton. Abolish both NSC and HSC and start over by PNSR. Just out this afternoon, is another contribution to the discussion by the Homeland Security Policy Institute.   They have produced a Task Force Report on the Future of the Homeland Security Council that attempts to track all the major arguments. Some of you have noticed I am on the witness panel.  I look forward to reporting out to you by Friday morning, if not before.  The hearing should be webcast.  You can access the webcast live from the Committee's schedule webpage. Chris Bellavita is planning to have one of his provocative pieces to start-off your Thursday morning.

On Monday Jonah Czerwinski announced he has asked us - Paul Stockton and Phil Palin - to contribute to HLSwatch on a sustained basis. That invitation is an honor and a significant responsibility. Under Jonah and his predecessor, Christian Beckner (who founded HLSwatch), this blog has provided a unique forum to identify and analyze new policy challenges. Sustaining that record of excellence will not be easy. We have two factors in our favor, however. First, and most important, we have you -- the readers and fellow contributors to this blog -- as partners. During our own years as readers of HLSwatch, we have learned a great deal from your postings and are counting on you to remain as active, and often feisty, colleagues in keeping the blog on the cutting edge. Our second advantage: there is no shortage of important new policy issues to address. Our own bias is that homeland security is very much a work in progress. Our gratitude goes out to those who serve on the front lines of homeland security in local, state and federal governments and in the private sector. Our commitment is to keep HLSwatch a valuable, provocative forum to support their work and to fuel broader debate over how homeland security should evolve in the years to come.

This is my final post on HLSwatch.com. This week I transitioned into a position in government and I will hand the blog over to new hands. It was a privilege to author this blog for two years, and I am thankful to the blog’s founder and original author, Christian Beckner, for inviting me to take his place in February 2007. Since then, and nearly 300 posts later, it has been a learning experience like no other. To research and write for HLSwatch afforded me the opportunity to engage with you, the reader, as well as to know the dedicated men and women serving the homeland security mission in the Executive Branch, at states and localities, across the policy community, in the private sector, and overseas. The nearly six years since DHS stood up also represents a unique time in our nation’s history to witness – and to support – a significant governance and security challenge that requires the help of all these stakeholders. I hope that HLSwatch.com has helped them, too. Two impressive individuals succeed me in contributing to HLSwatch. Paul Stockton and Philip Palin will write for HLSwatch on a weekly basis. Paul Stockton is a senior research scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). He was formerly the associate provost at the Naval Postgraduate School and was the founding director of its Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Dr. Stockton focuses on how U.S. security institutions respond to changes in the threat (including the rise of terrorism), and the interaction of Congress and the Executive branch in restructuring national security budgets, policies and institutional arrangements. From 1995 until 2000, he served as director of NPS' Center for Civil-Military Relations. From 2000-2001, he founded and served as the acting dean of NPS' School of International Graduate Studies. He was appointed associate provost in 2001. Phil Palin is a senior fellow with the National Institute for Strategic Preparedness. Phil is the former CEO of Teleologic Learning Company. He is Principal Author of the book Catastrophe Preparation and Prevention for Law Enforcement Professional (2008), Consequence Management for CBRNE Events ( 2009, forthcoming), and Co-Author of Catastrophe Preparation and Prevention for Fire Service Professionals (2008). I still seek a third contributor who could help manage the daily contributions that cover fast moving developments and provide timely reporting of newsworthy items in the homeland security space. If you are interested in this opportunity, please email me. Thank you again for your readership and your partnership. Best, Jonah